Wednesday, October 31, 2012

Come next Tuesday night, we’ll get a resolution (let’s hope) to a great ongoing battle of 2012: not just the Presidential election between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, but the one between the pundits trying to analyze that race with their guts and a new breed of statistics gurus trying to forecast it with data.

In Election 2012 as seen by the pundits–political journalists on the trail, commentators in cable-news studios–the campaign is a jump ball. There’s a slight lead for Mitt Romney in national polls and slight leads for Barack Obama in swing-state polls, and no good way of predicting next Tuesday’s outcome beyond flipping a coin. ...

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

It may well be that classism is today driven by racism more often than vice vera (I don't know that I implied otherwise, but I may have). Certainly I think that, for example, the mid '90s welfare "reform" was made possible and popular by racism. I think that one of the big challenges of the 21st century will be to separate classism from racism as much as possible. It's the only way to destroy both of them for good, because their frequent conjoining provides too many opportunities to deny that one or the other exists.

It may well be that classism is today driven by racism more often than vice vera (I don't know that I implied otherwise, but I may have). Certainly I think that, for example, the mid '90s welfare "reform" was made possible and popular by racism. I think that one of the big challenges of the 21st century will be to separate classism from racism as much as possible. It's the only way to destroy both of them for good, because their frequent conjoining provides too many opportunities to deny that one or the other exists.

If there's a social change that needs to happen this century, it's this. So much of our discussion around upward mobility, around "social" policy and economics is grounded in terrible assumptions about both class and race. If we can acknowledge the connection between the two and work on how to dismantle it, we can make real progress. I think one of the saddest political victories in this country's history was the success of the Southern Strategy. For some inexplicable reason, a large swath of working class and poor white Americans are absolutely certain that they would live better lives if only brown people didn't take what they don't "deserve." Similarly, many poor black and brown Americans feel certain that white working class people are irredeemably racist. The urban/rural divide (and in urban areas, the history of redlining and vandalizing of black communities by working class whites doesn't help) makes this conversation almost impossible. Bill Clinton was deeply loved by both groups, but never successfully bridged the two (and never tried to). Barack Obama cleaves this even deeper. It seems to me that he is assumed to work for "others" and has to beg and grovel and overtly favor white communities before they trust that he doesn't have a secret agenda to put them in FEMA blackening camps or something.

I suppose first, I would say - I always find it amusing how such tax hikes are always pooh-poohed as a 'barely a dent',...

It's plum silly. A healthy chunk of the deficit is due to taxes being historically on the low end. Do the math** with top rates where they were under Clinton or Reagan and the deficit gets a lot smaller. Not that we can expect that from the 'numbers don't matter' party...

**Laffing boys need not apply

Interesting. George Will had Obama getting even fewer EVs than did the unskewed poll guy. Sad.

I'm curious. As science became more and more anathema to the 'Pubs... was their astonishment at Obama winning real? Did the inability to marshal facts, to think of facts as anything other than talking points, create an inability to grasp what was happening in the months leading up to the election? I ask because Rove's astonishment seemed real. Sure, he was playing to his billionaire crowd, but a lot of those predicting a Romney victory seemed genuinely surprised.

For those of you thinking the right will consult its navel, The Susan B Anthony List, the antiabortion outfit, says Romney lost swing voters because he wasn't tough enough on abortion. I have yet to hear any rethinking of R policy. Btw, Latino voters think abortion should be legal, 66-29.

I see people like Andy are trying to explain the election by calling the GOP bigots and such. I think that analysis is expected, but it's far too complex and misses the mark. (And don't latinos typically vote Democrat? What chance does the GOP really have trying to win an election by turning latinos into GOP voters? It would be like trying to turn gays or blacks into GOP voters. Or, on the flip side, like Democrats trying to turn Evangelicals into Democrat voters.)

This is simply foolish. People, generally, are bigoted. The right is more bigoted in this country than other sectors. Surely you grasp this. In any case, if Romney's policies had been less noxious to people of color, and he had picked up 10% of the black vote, and 32% of the Latino vote, he would have won the election. It's really not that hard to figure out.

Does anyone have a link to Ann Coulter whining about the results yet?

Because vote suppression occurs only when it wins elections? That makes sense.

I was referring to vote rigging/changing, not suppression.

Oh, okay. Because vote rigging/changing occurs only when it wins elections? That makes sense. Oh, and some wingnuts claim it happens, ergo it can't happen. Got it.

Minnesota overturned the Constitutional definition of one man owe woman.

Yeah, that's a weird one. I got hollered at as "fine for a white guy" from a couple of black girls passing in a car when I was in DC for law school. Memorable because it just happened the one time (that I know about / remember); can only imagine what it's like to hear it a lot. Bleah.

So long as the GOP rank and file are convinced that a) they don't have a bigotry problem, and b) they have a better economic policy, they're in a bad way that every suggestion of how the GOP could reform suggested here seems to fail on one point or the other. In some sense, the two are stuck together - in order to promote the myth that they have a better ecomonic policy, they need a bogeyman to blame for why middle class (actual middle class $40k-$80k) voters feel like they're not getting their money's worth on taxes (and call me a socialist, but I'll suggest it's because wealthy individuals aren't paying their fare share). Hence the "Minorities are all on welfare, sucking up your tax dollars". Too many minorities is indeed a problem; I suspect you could count on all of the religious right/tea party vote with a much more narrowly chosen bogeyman (and the right answer is probably atheists); but I don't see how you get there.

A tea party that split and kept the bigotry but dumped the economic policy that only favours billionaires for one that favours middle class people could do quite well - raise taxes on the wealthy, inheritance taxes (in both cases, probably with a million dollars as the cutoff of "rich" for rhetoric purposes), made college affordable, funded subways in cities, gave tax credits oriented to car and home ownership, but worked against the actual economic interests of the poor (i.e., #### minimum wage, funding for buses, let funding for most things be local for ghettoisatin purposes, etc). But it's hard to see how that could happen.

@5607: I think it's hard to see how that would happen precisely because the party was largely financed this go round by people who will insist on continued and unsustainably low taxes on the wealthy. The GOP doesn't favor economic determinism, it favors rigging the game. Why would the wealthy continue to lavishly support a party whose economic policy favors the middle class? That's diametrically opposed to their interests. That covertly taped conversation of Scott Walker selling out the laboring class to his billionaire backer is a perfect example of that.

You can only sell so much smoke. You can't try to go to Obama's right on defense without, as Romney did, proposing to spend unnecessary, pointless trillions of dollars. Eventually people catch on to the idea that a trillion dollar defense budget means decaying bridges and increased out of pocket health costs. Republicans bear more responsibility than Democrats for the US having the longest working week in the industrialized world, and for middle class wages stagnating for decades. A serious change in this regard, in favor of the middle class, would involve a complete philosophical turnabout for the party. I don't think it's even remotely possible.

They've also run out of gas in another way. It's now a lot less possible than it was under Reagan to destroy the budget by dramatically increasing military spending, then propose the only way out of the mess you've created is to slash social spending. I suppose W. accomplished that to some degree, but as we saw Social Security remains the third rail of American politics, and Medicare is not only untouchable, but expanding. Any realistic budgeting along with increasing recognition that basic human rights are only respected when secured by universal health care, means cuts have to be made in defense. We may finally see the reverse of what we saw under Reagan, then Bush and Bush--defense spending reined in by a broad consensus that social rights are only guaranteed when you have certain, funded social programs, which can only be paid for by defense cuts.

edit: does anyone think Republicans in Congress are going to be one iota less intransigent over the next two years? I'm not seeing it.

I might overlook a fair amount to support a party that actually made college affordable. As it is, it was the Democratic administration that got rid of subsidized Stafford loans. But the only way to get costs down is probably to raise admissions standards, which is a political non-starter when there is so little economically viable non-degree employment available. One thing I don't know: do big student loan bills make mortgage lenders any less squeamish than other kinds of debt? If not, we're going to be seeing a much lower level of home ownership in the current generation.

How about a program where wealthy individuals can be matched to college-age people in their state and receive a full tax write-off on the in-state tuition at the local public university? Maybe tuition rates will come down if enough young people start deciding that they'd rather work at Walmart without $100,000 worth of debt under their belts than with.

eventually people catch on to the idea that a trillion dollar defense budget means decaying bridges and increased out of pocket health costs.

They do? They don't seem to have yet. But a large military is good for the economy in some ways. It certainly provides jobs, though they're not very desirable if you don't like the idea of potentially sent into battle. Bases are a boost to the entire local economy, too. In those respects, the military is a way of getting the government to spend money on normal citizens that the right can't attack as "socialism."

@5608 - Two years is probably too short a timescale, but, especially with a charismatic pusher, I think teapartiers could easily be won over to an economic policy that privileges surburban white collar types with net worth less than a million dollars pretty easily; the party elite wouldn't like it, but with the wingnuts more in control of the primaries than ever I think it's plausible for such a person to rise (if unlikely) and be able to preserve almost all the existing votes (which needs some target for the bigotry/religious hatred - atheists and/or gays are small number of votes the Republicans have little hope of getting anyways), and extend well into the squishy center.

Unlikely, yes - but all the other plans I've seen suggested here really rely on calculated redirection for the purpose of winning votes - one that relies on appealling to the self-interest of the electorate is more plausible, I think.

I might overlook a fair amount to support a party that actually made college affordable

I expect a lot of suburban/urban nuclear family types would - but yes, it costs money, which is why I had to include a "tax the rich" caveat. Tax rich people/don't tax companies (much) is a hard sell, but it's better than any alternative I can see (and actually makes economic sense). Don't tell your right wing voters that's where the idea came from, but Canada/Australia/Europe make university/college pretty affordable and have high attendance rates.

Alfred Regnery, president of the Paul Revere Project, issued a stark warning for the GOP.

"If Republicans don't start to listen to (what minorities are looking for in a candidate), it's going to be a long time before they can win," he said.

This is the same Alfred Regnery whose publishing house under his stewardship issued more wingnut titles than nearly every other publishing house put together. There's scarcely a mouthbreather on Earth that he hasn't associated himself with.

His comments echoed those made my former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who earlier Wednesday said on CNN that the party now faces a "very serious moment" and argued the GOP should work on becoming more inclusive–a major challenge, he said, for House Republicans.

No, but they're disproportionately poor, they've disproportionately used government services, and, in Latinos' case, they unabashedly want bigger government. A whopping 75 percent of Latinos in the Pew Hispanic poll this summer said they want a bigger government with more services. And, alas, over 75 percent of Latinos voted for Obama yesterday.

I have never seen a more crystal clear example of why Republicans are failing with ethnic minorities. Here's what the GOP should do (because both blacks and Latinos are very conservative socially, and share a lot of "personal responsibility" rhetoric with conservatives): instead of telling minorities that racism is in their pretty little heads and that they'd know better if they just voted with Republicans, they should instead recognize that structural racism is a problem, and then explain how their policies will help solve the problem and give minorities a stronger voice and place in our national dialogue. They could then stop: associating places that have a lot of minorities with "not-real America"; conflating "American" with white (that's a huge one); talking to minorities as if we are too dumb to understand why Republicans are awesome (or suggest that Democrats have mind-control powers and thus we are too weak-willed to resist); talking to ethnic minorities as if we are a big hive mind (or, as every black person knows, like we all know each other); that the only reason we might want federal government involvement is because we are dependent leeches who love that sweet, sweet government money (and not because we have living experience with state and local govt oppression and corruption; whereas the Feds have a much better track record).

Problem solved! Or, you know, you could tell blacks and Latinos that they're idiots and morons, that they are lazy and dependent, that they refuse to take responsibility for themselves and that's why they want an active Federal government, that they do not "look" American and the places they live in aren't really America. And then when they vote against your party in absolutely absurd numbers, wonder what the heck was wrong with them.

There is certainly a lot to be said for avoiding generalizations. However, this thread is filled with generalizations about Republicans, conservatives and even whites, so that might be an area that some people could work on.

But the discussion is particularly of the Republican Party generally.

Again, I know and love many Republicans. They're good people and don't fit the generalization being stated here. But the party, as a whole, does. Forget substance. The Republicans could - could have, perhaps* - done pretty well if they had exactly the same policies but didn't smugly put them forward as if they were smarter and better than everyone else. That is, lose most of the minority vote but capture the more center and center-right voters. Instead, their ugliness betrayed something that turns those voters off.

* Probably hard to do now. We've seen what the Tea Party is and if they suddenly come up with new packaging, most folks won't buy it.

when someone wants to talk to an actual republican active in the party and with firm knowledge of past, present and future plans you let me know

but instead you want to read devil's and other similar wagging the finger posts keep on keeping on.

Harvey, we're talking about how the Republican party gains more votes in the communities where it is getting creamed. What older white folks such as yourself (and my father, lifelong Republican, son of a long-serving Republican sheriff, and all-round great guy) think on it doesn't matter. If what you're selling isn't appreciated by someone, making it more appealing to yourself doesn't solve the problem. I know you get that. But your party doesn't seem to.

As someone who thinks the Democrats don't have all the answers and would very much like to see a conservative party that wasn't ugly and extreme, I'd love for you to tell me the Republicans, generally, know they have a problem and are working to fix it. I also get that defensiveness is natural after a stinging defeat. But there has to be some reality in there somewhere.

the core tea party is all about fiscal issues. the true tea party is not overly concerned with abortion or gay marriage or that stuff.

others have piggybacked on and the local tea party leaders, like in indiana, have shrugged because they figured it fit their voting profile locally. but again, the core tea partiers are all about not spending money.

Devil is 100% right about structural bigotry. I live it too, and my life is fine but I can't pretend it has disappeared. But I also tell myself not to complain because my dad grew up under Jim Crow. So the situation is such that I consider myself fortunate to live in a time when the bigotry lobbied at me and others is subtle and not directly violent. But my name is Justin, and I do breathe a sigh of relief during this early part of my career that that name doesn't raise eyebrows on a resume.

There are plenty of nonminorities who understand that this isn't just going to disappear. And many who deny it or don't care. Unfortunately, within the GOP, those who understand are drowned out by those who point at a Clarence Thomas and figure all work has already been done.

It's dumb. My mother is a corporate lawyer. Her success doesn't mean the glass ceiling for women is gone. It just means she managed to slip through a crack in it. Same thing goes for racial minorities, and doubly so for female minorities (side note: my mom kicks ass.)

I think people overreact to the "big reasons" why one side or the other won an election. I do enjoy David Simon's blunt stridency when I've read his occasional rant, though. And, of course, the creator of The Wire gets a lifetime pass even if he basically ruined tv for me.

and surely you understand that while the long-term demographics, which i freely acknowledge, present a challenge right 'here' in 'this' election there was not some huge chasm in the overall vote. it was a close election. a thing here a thing there and who knows.

doesn't mean the the gop doesn't need to adjust.

and as i have shared previously, there was a big powwow about 20 years ago where the gop party leadership was given a presentation about demographics. the focuus became gaining control of state legislatures and the judiciary. the gop has done a good job of that.

the core tea party is all about fiscal issues. the true tea party is not overly concerned with abortion or gay marriage or that stuff.

This is not true as an empirical matter. See Pew's poll of the Tea Party. The Tea Party is somewhat more conservative on government issues / fiscal issues, and somewhat more conservative on social issues than the Republican party. They are an organization of the right wing, and as such they are an alliance of social and fiscal conservatives (with most of them being both).

i and others i know don't give a sh8t about race or gender. it's about whether we are ok about sharing the power. and none of us have been in an environment where sharing power works. so if you don't have the power then you are powerless.

so when you talk about this stuff keep in mind that the sole focus should be on how do you convince someone that has had power that 'some' does not equate to 'all'.

because to my peers it's very binary. you either have it or you do not. and if that is the choice they are going to spend whatever, consort with whomever, and tolerate whatever to maintain that power.

you guys are so d8mn caught up in your preconceived notions about the tea party as extremists. they are extreme fiscally. the other stuff is a means to an end.

I'm just asking for empirical evidence for this claim. I don't doubt your personal experience, I do think that if your personal experience were representative of the Tea Party as a whole, there would be evidence to cite to defend the claim. The Tea Party's involvement in primaries has led to far more socially conservative Republicans getting party nominations, for instance. The polls of the Tea Party show a movement which has social views somewhat to the right of the Republican party as a whole.

tehy 'tolerate' stuff on a local level to get folks elected who are going to be first, last and always about the checkbook

you guys are so d8mn caught up in your preconceived notions about the tea party as extremists. they are extreme fiscally. the other stuff is a means to an end.

The "other stuff" is losing it for you.

I'm clearly biased, but I'm the guy you need - if it were about the checkbook, I'd be there. It isn't. It's a very small sample but you are in a small minority, which includes my father, who primarily talks about the checkbook. Most Republicans I talk to spit and rave about gays and Mexicans. It's as ugly as it is stupid.

And I'm in complete agreement the changes don't have to be huge. You need not win by 20 points. But that is, basically, my point. Soften, a bit, on gays and reproductive issues - you really don't have to give in on abortion. Find candidates and leaders who, when stating their opposition to stuff the "base" needs to hear opposition on can do so without appearing to relish the idea of making fornicators suffer. When elected to power, actually manage the budget rather than shifting billions to their friends. Do those things and you'll win.

If my choice is: guy who wants to tax and funnel money to his friends and appears to hate gays and really dislike brown people or guy who wants to tax and funnel money to his friend but appears to like people and is friendly, the choice is easy.

I agree with you on power. I'd just point out that, right now, you don't have much. I'm not one who thinks that is good. I'd actually like to see a better running Republican party. It would be better for the country (I know, here on BBTF, that I appear to be on the side of the leftists. But that is more a matter of the enemy of my enemy.)

As for racism, classism, etc., here's what I have trouble with. So many "liberals" for lack of a better term, believe that there is no such thing as a valid stereotype. If a large enough proportion of a given ethnic/class group behave in a certain way, how is it racist or classist (not a word, but you know what I mean) to associate those behaviours with the larger group? I'm not trying to say we should ever justify active discrimination against anyone based on the group to which they belong, but at some point the stats don't lie.

I live in a region of the country that is overwhelmingly white, so I don't have any direct experience with a black or Hispanic population (e.g. there were 3000 in my high school, and maybe 10 were black and 8 were Hispanic). But I did grow next to, and currently live within 20 km of two Indian reserves (we call them First Nations in Canada now, FWIW). Anyone in my situation would be hard pressed not to have stereotypes about First Nations people. If I have a choice between hiring a white person and hiring a First Nations person, it would be silly of me, from a purely rational, statistical analysis of possible future outcomes, to think that hiring the First Nations person would be better for my bottom line. I know that sounds horrible, but its true. How do we get beyond that reality? Because it is a reality. That doesn't mean I can't ever expect to find a good employee who happens to be a First Nations person of course. I don't think it has anything to do with genetics at all. I do know, for certain, that throwing money at a certain cohort of society and demanding no accountability in return does far more harm than good. This is what Canada has done with First Nations (in addition to a long string of horrible abuses).

Conversely, is it racist to say that the Germans or the Japanese are a disciplined people? If you can have something on one end of the spectrum, you have to have it on the other.

well, the gop has won the abortion discussion. the nation as a whole may not support the most extreme pro life position but overall it's a conservative view. the nitwits in indiana were espousing the most extreme position and folks recoiled from that.

as to gay marriage that battle was lost 10 years ago, reverend rick warren told the gop leadership the battle was lost and the social issue conservatives wouldn't let it go and organized all the state amendments to throw up the barriers and in their minds give them time to convince folks they were wrong. worked for a spell but long-term it's over and has been over. nobody under age 35 cares and rightly so. why should anyone care? it's a dumb issue

the candidates willing to sign up to be deficit hawks tend to bring that social baggage along and it doesn't hurt them on a local basis.

there was a slate article or articles where one of their writers was surprised in interviews to hear tea party leaders shrug about the social topics

you are seeing a link as something that is a requirement when it is more by happenstance

I'm not saying you're wrong - I don't know - but I'm saying that I don't see the empirical evidence for your claim. Most of the empirical evidence lines up on the other side. It could be wrong, you could be right, but I'm going with the data 99 times out of 100.

it would be silly of me, from a purely rational, statistical analysis of possible future outcomes, to think that hiring the First Nations person would be better for my bottom line. I know that sounds horrible, but its true. How do we get beyond that reality?

That's not reality, that's bigotry. That is precisely what we need to get beyond.

It would be a bad idea to hire an unqualified, irresponsible, and lazy person and it would be a good idea to hire a qualified, responsible, and hard-working person. Their racial heritage is immaterial to making that determination.

If I have a choice between hiring a white person and hiring a First Nations person, it would be silly of me, from a purely rational, statistical analysis of possible future outcomes, to think that hiring the First Nations person would be better for my bottom line. I know that sounds horrible, but its true.

Unless you are hiring people to fill an acting role, hopefully your standards are more than just skin colour or racial heritage.

Otherwise, it's based on pure merit, right?
And if that First Nations person passes through your interview/vetting process, wouldn't that be a better indication of their skills/ability/value to your company than just simply basing your decision on their race? Or do you not trust your own hiring standards/evaluations, and just default to race?

you are seeing a link as something that is a requirement when it is more by happenstance

Okay, like I say, I know and love many Republicans and I agree that they aren't racists and bigots. However, whether it be requirement, happenstance or miscommunication, it is something the Republican party desperately needs to address.

If I want to court the prom queen and she won't because she thinks I don't dress well, then how I dress is of no matter. I can either change how I dress, and get the date, or I can keep on dressing the way I like and not get the date. What I don't get to do is lecture her on why she's an idiot. And what, I think, we're all saying, is that the Republican party seems to be telling us all we're idiots for not liking them. It's a grand recipe to be ignored.

Dialing back over thousands of posts, it's worth noting the other important demographic event this election.

Millennials, the best generation ever, turned out at rates higher than most pollsters predicted. Voters 18-29 years old accounted for 19% of the electorate, a slight increase from 2008. Their support for Obama was down about five points (basically in line with the nation as a whole), but they still were solidly in the Dem column at 60-37.

That's not reality, that's bigotry. That is precisely what we need to get beyond.

It would be a bad idea to hire an unqualified, irresponsible, and lazy person and it would be a good idea to hire a qualified, responsible, and hard-working person. Their racial heritage is immaterial to making that determination.

If you had any first-hand experience with First Nations, you'd know it is reality. Just like its reality that a higher proportion of blacks in the US are born to single mothers that are whites. That is just statistics. Ignoring the statistics won't make them change in a positive direction. We need to find a way to move the stats in the right direction, and that usually involves making some hard decisions.

the gop should be working to overhaul patent law and repealing dodd=frank and putting glass-steagal back in its place. this is the party of innovation and you cannot spur innovation if everyone is in patent court all the d8mn time

dodd frank is 2500 pages long and nobody knows what the h8ll it says. glass-steagall i think was 15 pages and you knew the rules. so if we need financial regulation give me the one where 10,000 lawyers don't get rich in the process.

Conversely, is it racist to say that the Germans or the Japanese are a disciplined people? If you can have something on one end of the spectrum, you have to have it on the other.

It's not racist, but it is bigoted to see people primarily as members of a group and not as individuals. You claim you are using 'statistics', but you would never treat white people in the same fashion. That's because white is the default identity. If you visited Europe, and were treated rudely because "all Americans are loud, fat, ignorant slobs", you would be personally offended. But at least in that circumstance you could return home and never have to deal with it again. Minorities don't have that option.

Perhaps Mitt Romney lost the 2012 election on Sept. 22, 2011, when, alarmed by Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s entry into the Republican nomination race, he rushed to Perry’s right regarding immigration, attacking the Dream Act. He would go on to talk about forcing illegal immigrants into “self-deportation.” It is surprising that only about 70 percent of Hispanics opposed Romney.

As it has every four years since 1992, the white portion of the turnout declined in 2012. In 2008, Barack Obama became the first person elected president while losing the white vote by double digits. In 2012 — the year after the first year in which a majority of babies born in America were minorities — Hispanics were for the first time a double-digit (10 percent) portion of the turnout. Republicans have four years to figure out how to leaven their contracting base with millions more members of America’s largest and fastest-growing minority....

Republicans can take some solace from the popular vote. But unless they respond to accelerating demographic changes — and Obama, by pressing immigration reform, can give Republicans a reef on which they can wreck themselves — the 58th presidential election may be like the 57th, only more so.

I think it's pretty simple to see why Rants holds these views when he admits his lack of experience with most other groups.
Newsflash, assigning characteristicsb
(to the point where it would affect employment) based on membership in a group is bigotry. Straight up.

So, yeah. Good stuff all around here this morning. Even Old Man Wisconsin is making semi-lucid points. But I would be remiss if I didn't point out the fact that all of this "Great post, DevilInABlueCap!" stuff that people are using as intro sounds a lot like the internet equivalent of "You're pretty for a black girl."

Just sayin', kids.

Devil is 100% right about structural bigotry. I live it too, and my life is fine but I can't pretend it has disappeared. But I also tell myself not to complain because my dad grew up under Jim Crow. So the situation is such that I consider myself fortunate to live in a time when the bigotry lobbied at me and others is subtle and not directly violent.

My two cents on the republican minority "problem". Asian-Americans should really be mostly Republican. Korean-Americans are pretty religious and evangelical Christian. The Philippines are probably the strictest catholic country in the world. Indians come from a country where government has their fingers in everything making everything inefficient. Taiwanese Americans are in perpetual worry about what china wants to do against them. While Chinese Americans come from a pretty repressive regime and probably do not want to live under big government.

Also as someone mentioned, Asian-Americans have higher average incomes than other minorities. How is this not a core republican demographic? Pretty much all of my parents friends have masters and phd (pretty much easiest way to come to the US), had high-paying jobs (a lot of retiring), live in a republican area of NJ yet I know almost none of them being republican. Even if the republican party isn't racist, some of the visible and vocals ones are. Devilinabluecap made the great point, when mouthpieces say "true Americans" and "real america" it ends any chance of them winning a vote.

Generally good advice, but studies have shown that even if people are making a good faith effort to be neutral, they often aren't due to unconscious biases. Rants (and I do appreciate your candor in this matter, don't consider yourself particularly targeted), while interviewing a First Nations candidate, is likely to interpret their behavior and words in more negative ways than a white candidate doing exactly the same things and saying exactly the same words, due to the stereotypes. That's the insidious nature of bigotry. People think racism is stuff like burning crosses and shouting "ni&&er;" at people, but far more damaging, and far harder to guard against, is that kind of background unequal treatment. It's the sort of thing that takes generations to eradicate.

Also as someone mentioned, Asian-Americans have higher average incomes than other minorities. How is this not a core republican demographic? Pretty much all of my parents friends have masters and phd (pretty much easiest way to come to the US), had high-paying jobs (a lot of retiring), live in a republican area of NJ yet I know almost none of them being republican. Even if the republican party isn't racist, some of the visible and vocals ones are. Devilinabluecap made the great point, when mouthpieces say "true Americans" and "real america" it ends any chance of them winning a vote.

Yup. Some of the best evidence of the problem that Republicans have is that Asian-Americans went Democratic at just about the same rates as Hispanic voters. (73-26 by the CNN exits). That's not an immigration problem, it's a "you're not equally American" problem.

That's one of your problems. It's easy for old white guys with money to say that,but a lot of the people whose votes you'd like to swing do give a shitt about race and gender. If you are going to talk demographics, it is generally a good idea to start by looking at your own. You can't fully detach race and gender from the power and money stuff. That is a big part of the point that DiBC is making.

(I know, here on BBTF, that I appear to be on the side of the leftists.

Nah. You're nice to "the leftists", and unlike guys like Kehoskie and DiPerna, you actually talk to us like we're people instead of saying "Funny stuff coming from a liberal" "Film at 11" "Amusing" "Bizarre" etc. But you're a FiCon, and you're right in saying that you, among other types of people, are the guy the GOP "needs." BTF has many FiCons who don't like the current iteration of the GOP; I mentioned that to Andy in an email once. Now, I don't know to what extent that is really an issue for the GOP electorally, on a national level. My guess is not that much. BTF has a tight demographic and is a very small sample, but it is still worth noting.

the gop should be working to overhaul patent law and repealing dodd=frank and putting glass-steagal back in its place. this is the party of innovation and you cannot spur innovation if everyone is in patent court all the d8mn time

dodd frank is 2500 pages long and nobody knows what the h8ll it says. glass-steagall i think was 15 pages and you knew the rules. so if we need financial regulation give me the one where 10,000 lawyers don't get rich in the process.

I agree completely. Unfortunately, the message I heard from Republicans was only the repeal part.

And I don't think you're lying. You certainly know more about the internal workings of the party than anyone else here. My point has only been that the folks here know more about how the message is being heard, which, for attracting voters, is the important part. It doesn't matter if you're racist and bigoted if a majority of the voters think you are.

I honestly don't know about the "soul" of the GOP or the Tea Party. I did watch and do know about what happened to the Democrats as part of the great realignment that LBJ predicted. There were individual victories along the way, helped by the staggered way the south shifted into the GOP, but there were a whole lot of years where as a Democrat I knew we were losing the core of the country, in many ways fighting a rear guard action. The Reagan years really sucked.

History never repeats, but the past informs the present, and I think the GOP is going to discover just how miserable it is. I am not concern trolling, because I both like the Democrats winning elections and I don't think anything I say will make any difference. Things will play out as they do, but I am interested in analyzing and understanding what is and what will (might) happen.

I don't think the GOP will suddenly disappear, become irrelevant, stop winning plenty of elections or anything like that. However it does look very likely they are being really hurt by all the demographic shifts we have talked about:

* Women vote and exist across the whole economic spectrum, and they favor the Democratic vision as it currently stands to the Republican one.
* Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians are a growing share of the electorate and are trending away from the GOP.
* The nation is becoming more secular oriented, and pretty clearly the GOP is more aligned with religion than the Democrats.
* The young cohorts strongly favor the Democrats on many issues, primarily social and environmental.

These trends are obviously not independent, and in fact are correlated, but the tide the GOP is swimming against is real and it is hard to figure out which trends to go after, because as folks have said the GOP can't change into Democrat-lite, can't afford to truly alienate its core groups. It is really hard to change a party away from the activist base of a party. Primaries are a main way parties change and right now deviations from orthodoxy in either party means a primary challenge in order to force a return to orthodoxy.

But all that is strategic. Tactically the GOP is still plenty strong. They have a majority in the house, majority of Governors, and in many ways a functional majority of judges. Right now the big decision the GOP has to make is whether their interests in the current situation are better met by compromising with the Democrats in order to cut a better deal, or holding fast the their principles and refusing to compromise.

We shall find out if Obama term #2 has a different dynamic than term #1.

My two cents on the republican minority "problem". Asian-Americans should really be mostly Republican. Korean-Americans are pretty religious and evangelical Christian. The Philippines are probably the strictest catholic country in the world. Indians come from a country where government has their fingers in everything making everything inefficient. Taiwanese Americans are in perpetual worry about what china wants to do against them. While Chinese Americans come from a pretty repressive regime and probably do not want to live under big government.

Not only that; I posted the long discussion by Rany Jazayerli on the shift by Muslims from voting Republican by large margins to becoming a reliable Democratic bloc.

Of course, I would never disagree with that. All I'm saying is that there are cultural factors on First Nations (most of which are probably white people's (politicians/bureaucrats) fault, that make the likelihood of a qualified candidate coming off of a reserve lower than someone in the general population. How do we change those cultural factors? I'm not talking about ethnic heritage, I'm talking about general living conditions and present-day attitudes.

5630 - spot on RE: tea party origins. santelli sort of gave it a name, but the small group of it that i knew about was "balance the debt! stop spending so much when we don't have the money!". the part that i knew (and it may differ from yours) was much more libertarian in beliefs, ie. pulling out of the wars because of the money it costs.

they then got co-opted by more traditional right-wing groups who started appearing on tv as tea-party this and tea-party that, and used their existing base (which had the far-right social issues) to take over the tea-party movement.

a friend of mine is generally responsible fiscally, and do-what-you-want socially. he was super excited about the tea party, wanted me to go to a rally with him, and i told him about the negative aspect and why i wouldn't go. sadly, he learned that the tea party ideas mentioned above (the debt ones) - and an incorporation of mainly Is, with fiscally responsible Ds and Rs - were NOT the center of the "tea party".

But I would be remiss if I didn't point out the fact that all of this "Great post, DevilInABlueCap!" stuff that people are using as intro sounds a lot like the internet equivalent of "You're pretty for a black girl."

Just sayin', kids.

Glad you said it first. Couldn't be more obvious. Andy's full cite just to make sure nobody missed what nobody missed is a veritable classic of the genre. Earth to Andy: We can read without your paternalistic guidance.

So what is it exactly that Barack Obama (who I wound up voting for after all the noise) is going to do to end or vitiate "structural racism" and/or "social racism"?

The difference is that we yell at people for using slurs but there are tons of people like Rants out there who may indeed make such hiring decisions.

I'm 26 and very well credentialed, but to many, as a black man, I still might well be lazy and prone to violence, because 'those are the statistics.'

I knew I'd be sticking my neck out. I personally try to fight against what is only human nature (the desire to classify things) and be open minded about everything. Nobody answered my question about Germans and Japanese.

These trends are obviously not independent, and in fact are correlated, but the tide the GOP is swimming against is real and it is hard to figure out which trends to go after, because as folks have said the GOP can't change into Democrat-lite, can't afford to truly alienate its core groups. It is really hard to change a party away from the activist base of a party. Primaries are a main way parties change and right now deviations from orthodoxy in either party means a primary challenge in order to force a return to orthodoxy.

But all that is strategic. Tactically the GOP is still plenty strong.

True, but the same could be said of the Democrats in the 60s, 70s, and 80s. Sure, they only won one out of six presidential contests, but they still had huge majorities in Congress. Until the shifts that had manifested themselves at the Presidential level filtered down through the party machinery and began affecting those downticket. Now, the time when Democratic control of Congress was the given state of affairs has been long gone.

don't see why anyone thinks there is reason to slap andy's hand about it.

It wasn't the first time Andy's done it; in fact, he's called explicit attention -- Look everyone and learn from the black woman !!! -- to Devil's posts at a rate of something like 9 out of 10 of them. It's become almost uncomfortable to read.

True, but the same could be said of the Democrats in the 60s, 70s, and 80s.

That is pretty much exactly what I was getting at. The game board looks pretty familiar from some angles, but the sides are changed.

Regarding DevilInABlueCap, I can not know why people complemented the posts, but I liked them because they were well written and from a very underrepresented (here on BBTF) prespective - well and I agreed with them. Of course I really truly value diversity. I like diversity of opinion and when I am interviewing I always skew towards favoring the candidates with the most different perspective/background/etc so long as they meet the basic skills.

I don't think it is wrong to say Germans are (tend towards) 'X', but I think a whole team of "disciplined Germans" will function in general (most situations) more poorly than a more diverse team. Most people hire themselves though, which really looks like racism and occasionally is bigoted, but sometimes is people hiring who they are comfortable with (which doesn't make it better for the person not being hired btw).

fortune 500 companies are actively courting diversity both in terms of employees and suppliers because they recognize it helps productivity. not focused on the social good. tat's a nice byproduct. they see productivity gains out of a diverse workforce

so if you have two 'equal' candidates the diverse candidate might get the nod based on that company goal it's not affirmative action. it's a focus on productivity. but the losing candidate would likely perceive it differently.

Andy - though I love him - quotes everything. Some of his arguments with Ray on steroids comprised of more quote than content by a huge margin. It is not like we are going to run out of real estate in the thread though so I skim through his quoted sections to get to his actual content. I have long suspected he does it because it helps him organize his thoughts to see the text he is arguing for or against right there in the box, and who am I to say yeah or nay - let your quote flag fly Andy!

If he is quoting certain folks for other reasons, or there is some paternalistic or profiling reason I have no idea, have never really noticed, and even if true is (for me) pretty low on the list of things to care about, but would be problematic I guess.

It wasn't the first time Andy's done it; in fact, he's called explicit attention -- Look everyone and learn from the black woman !!! -- to Devil's posts at a rate of something like 9 out of 10 of them. It's become almost uncomfortable to read.

5675. Bitter Mouse Posted: November 08, 2012 at 10:07 AM (#4297793)

True, but the same could be said of the Democrats in the 60s, 70s, and 80s.

That is pretty much exactly what I was getting at. The game board looks pretty familiar from some angles, but the sides are changed.

Regarding DevilInABlueCap, I can not know why people complemented the posts, but I liked them because they were well written and from a very underrepresented (here on BBTF) prespective - well and I agreed with them. Of course I really truly value diversity. I like diversity of opinion and when I am interviewing I always skew towards favoring the candidates with the most different perspective/background/etc so long as they meet the basic skills.

I don't think it is wrong to say Germans are (tend towards) 'X', but I think a whole team of "disciplined Germans" will function in general (most situations) more poorly than a more diverse team. Most people hire themselves though, which really looks like racism and occasionally is bigoted, but sometimes is people hiring who they are comfortable with (which doesn't make it better for the person not being hired btw).
5676. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: November 08, 2012 at 10:08 AM (#4297794)
sbb

did not know that.

thanks for the info

5677. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: November 08, 2012 at 10:10 AM (#4297796)
fortune 500 companies are actively courting diversity both in terms of employees and suppliers because they recognize it helps productivity. not focused on the social good. tat's a nice byproduct. they see productivity gains out of a diverse workforce

so if you have two 'equal' candidates the diverse candidate might get the nod based on that company goal it's not affirmative action. it's a focus on productivity. but the losing candidate would likely perceive it differently.
5678. Bitter Mouse Posted: November 08, 2012 at 10:13 AM (#4297798)

It wasn't the first time Andy's done it;

Andy - though I love him - quotes everything. Some of his arguments with Ray on steroids comprised of more quote than content by a huge margin. It is not like we are going to run out of real estate in the thread though so I skim through his quoted sections to get to his actual content. I have long suspected he does it because it helps him organize his thoughts to see the text he is arguing for or against right there in the box, and who am I to say yeah or nay - let your quote flag fly Andy!

If he is quoting certain folks for other reasons, or there is some paternalistic or profiling reason I have no idea, have never really noticed, and even if true is (for me) pretty low on the list of things to care about, but would be problematic I guess.

We get that diversity argument in my home Province (New Brunswick) which is the only officially bilingual province in Canada. About 30-32% of the population is French, and the French are heavily concentrated in the Northern and Eastern parts of the province, but every single gov't document, sign, etc. has to be produced in both languages. Anyone with a French last name is basically assumed to be bilingual, whereas an anglophone has to be tested every few years to make sure that they are proficient in French (if they're in a bilingual position). Many anglohones, justifiably, feel cheated out of jobs simply because they can't speak French. French is taught in schools from Grade 3 through 11, but unless you live in one of the predominantly French areas of the province, you forget most of the language between Grade 11 and when you're old/experienced enough to get a gov't job, making those nine years of French classes a total waste of money. We've been officially bilingual since 1969, and its been a hot potato ever since.

The eloquence and insight and seriousness of Devil's posts have already placed her in the top echelons of posters around here, yet Andy and others still treat her as if she's in desperate need of their paternalistic guidance through the thicket and briar patch of the primarily white demographic around here.

And right there, in microcosm, you have the modern liberal vision of race in America.

* Not boring. It's just that point in the semester where pretty much everyone who is going to get it has gotten it - and their work is very good and, hence, not very interesting to grade, and the ones who aren't going to get it really, really, really don't get it and, hence, their work is depressing and appalling.

I love teaching, working with students, give and take, authority and encouragment, etc. I hate, hate, hate grading. Though it's necessary.

But I would be remiss if I didn't point out the fact that all of this "Great post, DevilInABlueCap!" stuff that people are using as intro sounds a lot like the internet equivalent of "You're pretty for a black girl."

"I know it when I see it"? You're not that much wiser and meta than the rest of us, cynical old man. Encouraging a not-frequent poster to post more frequently is not pandering by default. I know the world's a cold place, but that's what happens when you listen frequently to bearded bands from New Jersey.

Millennials, the best generation ever, turned out at rates higher than most pollsters predicted. Voters 18-29 years old accounted for 19% of the electorate, a slight increase from 2008. Their support for Obama was down about five points (basically in line with the nation as a whole), but they still were solidly in the Dem column at 60-37.

Perhaps the biggest mistake the national GOP and media has made in 2012 is assuming Millenials would behave like Gen X'ers. I think it's a disservice to both Millens and my X'er brothers and sisters to just assume, carte blanche, that any old generation can pull off disaffection and apathy quite like we have. It's like assuming every generation can match Boomers in self-absorption and egocentricism.

Perhaps the biggest mistake the national GOP and media has made in 2012 is assuming Millenials would behave like Gen X'ers. I think it's a disservice to both Millens and my X'er brothers and sisters to just assume, carte blanche, that any old generation can pull off disaffection and apathy quite like we have. It's like assuming every generation can match Boomers in self-absorption and egocentricism.

I don't think it is wrong to say Germans are (tend towards) 'X', but I think a whole team of "disciplined Germans" will function in general (most situations) more poorly than a more diverse team.

The absolute most disorganized person I've ever known was German. Granted, he was an ex-pat living in Stockholm, and I think he was high most of the time, but his work space was basically a replica of Disgusting Fat Computer Programmer Bad Guy from Jurassic Park.

That said, I once knew a German girl, and she did sort of play to stereotype on the kink.

Millennials, the best generation ever, turned out at rates higher than most pollsters predicted. Voters 18-29 years old accounted for 19% of the electorate, a slight increase from 2008. Their support for Obama was down about five points (basically in line with the nation as a whole), but they still were solidly in the Dem column at 60-37.

It just occurred to me that I will no longer be in this age bracket in a couple of years.